Viewing entries in
Bioethics

Robin Downie, Carl Elliott, Francis Fukuyama & the Hastings Center

I'm currently writing a chapter for Ruth Chadwick and Bert Gordijn on the history of posthumanism and while going through my archives I discovered this brief review of Fukuyama's 'Our Posthuman Future'. It is published in The Hastings Center Report and I felt like writing something about it. Actually, it made me think about putting together a 'Coincidences' category here.

Anyway, so here are the coincidences:

  1. Robin Downie is Profesor Emeritus at Glasgow Uni where I have just completed an MPhil in Medical Law and Ethics.
  2. I met Robin when I first moved to Glasgow and was put in touch with him by Carl Elliott, author of this article. I met Carl in 1999 at a meeting of his Enhancement Technologies Group at UCL.
  3. In this article, Carl is reviewing Francis Fukuyama's book. I developed a communication with Fukuyama in 2004, around the time of publishing Genetically Modified Athletes, since in The Economist's Year in 2003, he published a piece on GMAs.
  4. In 2002, I was based at the Hastings Center as an International Visiting Scholar. During this period, I met Tom Murray, President of the Center and author of the Foreword for my book.

Neuroscience and Society Network

A year or so back, I was in touch with Linsey McGoey about this new network, but have struggled to involve myself due mainly to logistics! However, now I'm a little closer to London, perhaps I'll get a chance to do something to support its work.

Project Biocultures

I can't remember whether it was an interest in Marquard Smith or Nikolas Rose that led me to the Project Biocultures website. In any case, the collaborative network is worth checking out: http://www.biocultures.org

BBC Radio Scotland (17 October, 2006, 1215-1245pm)

Debate about the developments in stem cell technology, which relates to an application from various scientists in the UK to the HFEA to introduce human skin tissue into animal eggs. The debate included Callum McKellar, who has also asked me to participate in a panel at the Edinburgh Biomedical Ethics Film Festival next month. Here are my unedited notes from the debate, mostly what I said:

News peg

  • current proposal is to use somatic cells – skin cells – these are not special cells, but the egg of an animal might be
  • so, the news item is the creation of human embryos up to 14th day
  • the study will use adult cells (skin) and insert into egg to see egg’s affect on cells
  • seems to be a way of making adult stem cells more powerful
  • use embryo to create stem cells that carry genetic defect responsible for neurological conditions
  • convert stem cells into neurons to study disease – the egg converts the skin cells into stem cells
  • ultimate aim:  use adult stem cells to create other cells for subsequent transplant without fear of immune rejection

initial reaction: a positive way of addressing what is often a stalemate between pro-life and pro-choice views on stem cells, but it is a compromise – involves treating animal life as artifact.

my position:

  • first, this is not a licence to engineer people, but study a disease; which is consistent with the intention of current legislation. where it encounters problems is over creation of an embryo, but this is also unclear because the embryo would be chimeric.
  • what’s needed is further debate about chimera and clarity about what they would entail,
  • engages the wrath of those that might be characterised as pro-life and those who argue on behalf of animal rights, as well as people concerned about species integrity.
  • human dignity is at stake for all parties: using stem cell science to improve the human condition and dignity of those who struggle with debilitating conditions
  • but we shouldn’t be so serious about technology.
  • key question is what are we prepared to allow people who have different value systems to do to themselves? if someone finds this an affront to dignity, does their view take precedence over those who do not see it in this way.
  • certainly be wary of the politicisation of science, but also be wary of reducing science to politics – competing ethical lobby groups. policy has the hard task of fixing ethics within social systems and compromises will be made. this licence does not seem to great a compromise for pro-life advocates. for those who argue for pro-choice, they might claim much more.

our attitude to animals

  • gene therapy research looking at extending mobility and functionality throughout life. major market in US for dog research – people want their dogs to run around for as long as possible.
  • in this case, issue seems to be whether we allow manipulation of animal egg. we wouldn’t allow the reverse to take place – inserting animal tissue into female egg – but I don’t see how one argues on behalf of personhood for an animal. those who would argue against the insertion of animal tissue into human eggs rely on a concern over dignity and personhood. for animals, less clear that this could be the claim.

 From the Guardian, related story:

British scientists are seeking approval to create embryos by fusing human cells with animal eggs in controversial research which will boost stem cell science and tackle some of the most debilitating and untreatable neurological diseases. Three teams in London, Edinburgh and Newcastle are to submit simultaneous applications to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority this month, requesting licences to create early-stage "chimeric" embryos that will be 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or cow. The HFEA has sought legal advice and encouraged the applications. The licences will allow scientists to remove the nuclei from animal eggs and replace them with human cells, leading to embryos containing the complete set of human genes, plus dozens of animal genes that sit inside tiny energy-making structures called mitochondria.

Technoethics Conference

One to attend... We are pleased to announce the III International Conference on Technoethics, to be held on-line, organized by University of Barcelona and EPSON Foundation’s Institute of Technoethics. The deadline for papers submission is March 15, 2007. More detailed information is to be found in this website:

http://www.technoethicsconference.com

We look forward to your participation.

Yours sincerely,

Josep M. Esquirol Lecturer of Philosophy at University of Barcelona and Director of the EPSON Foundation.

Ramon Rius Coordinator of the Conference.

BIRTH: The cultural politics of reproduction

BIRTH The Cultural Politics of Reproduction

An interdisciplinary conference hosted by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, Wednesday 7th March 2007

New health practices and technologies are rapidly transforming cultural understandings and individual experiences of reproduction. As a consequence of these changes 'birth' (by which we mean not only childbirth but the range of embodied, social and cultural practices associated with reproduction and parenting) has become the site of intensive academic research. BIRTH aims to create a dialogue between different disciplinary approaches to reproduction.Through a focus on the cultural politics of reproduction, this event aims to bring together academics and researchers from across the social sciences and humanities working in the area of reproduction, pregnancy, birthing, parenting and childcare.

This call for papers encourages the submission of abstracts that address the theme of birth, be that birth practices, birth stories, representations of birth, technologies of childbirth, issues of infertility, or birth as a metaphor for female identity, through a consideration of the cultural, sexual, economic, and institutional contexts from which these experiences of birth emerge.

Possible Themes

Birth Narratives and Body Stories: historical and changing myths of birth, Birth as rite of passage, secrets, shame, injury and birth, maternal monsters, race, ethnicity and birth, the new visual cultures of birth (including representations of birth in literature, television, theatre, film and other media forms), new consumer cultures of birth. Feminist and queer retellings of, `disabled` birth, male `pregnancies`, and `male reproduction`.

The Birthing Subject: feminist philosophies of birth and embodiment, pregnant embodiment, birth as a metaphor for rethinking female identities.

Childbirth: the birthing experience, medical and health practices associated with childbirth (pre-natal, intrapartum and post-natal), Prenatal Diagnostic Screening, genetic testing and engineering and IVF, and the impact of these health technologies on the meaning of childbirth, maternal agency within childbirth, alternative childbirth movements, pain and childbirth, the new legal cultures of childbirth, access to maternal health services, class and economic aspects of childbirth and fertility, Maternal Mortality and Childbirth Injury.

Reproductive `Failure`: discourses of infertility, `Failed` births, 'Barren' women, abortion, contraception, family planning, the foetal subject, pro-life politics, intentional childlessness, new mythologies of `having it all`, forced abortion, surrogacy, Sterilization and Human Rights, Reproductive Policies and Practices in non-Western contexts, The Politics of Below-Replacement Fertility.

Please send abstracts of 500 words to Imogen Tyler, i.tyler@lancs.ac.uk <mailto:i.tyler@lancs.ac.uk <mailto:i.tyler@lancs.ac.uk> > , by October 6th 2006.

Non -speakers can enroll for the event as a participant by contacting the conference administrator June Rye, j.rye@lancs.ac.uk <mailto:j.rye@lancs.ac.uk <mailto:j.rye@lancs.ac.uk> > . Please include full contact details with your conference registration email. Please note that places will be limited.

In due course we will send out and publish online the full conference information (including details of accommodation and travel). This event is fully funded and there will be no conference fee.

Imogen Tyler Lecturer in Media and Cultural Studies UG Admissions Tutor for American Studies, Film Studies, Media and Cultural Studies Institute for Cultural Research <http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres> Faculty of Social Sciences <http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/faculty/> Lancaster University <http://www.lancs.ac.uk/> Lancaster UK LA1 4YR (01524) 594186 i.tyler@lancaster.ac.uk <mailto:i.tyler@lancaster.ac.uk> www.imogentyler.net

Journal of Medical Humanities

Miah, A. (2006). "Doctor, Can You Fix My Broken Heart?" Journal of Medical Humanities 27(2): 127-129.This article began after watching the wonderful film 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' directed by Michel Gondry. It was not the first time I have thought about the way film can convey ethical issues related to medical technologies. One of the other films that sticks in my mind is Extreme Measures. There are many more and this review essay is now being developed into a more substantive article for an edited volume by Sandra Shapsay entitled 'Bioethics through Film', which will be published with Johns Hopkins University Press.

Genomics in Perspective

The National Library of Medicine recently announced a great resource of lectures which speak to this title. Details and links below:

A lecture series presented by the National Library of Medicine

Program: May 2, 2006 May 9, 2006 May 16, 2006 June 6, 2006 June 13, 2006 June 20, 2006 Abstracts Videos of the lecturesNLM is pleased to announce Genomics in Perspective, a lecture series that presents historical and social science perspectives on genomics to an audience of scientists, physicians, policy makers, and the general public.

Genomics can be a confusing issue to the public. For some, it promises a radical and abrupt transformation in medical practice; others suggest that the new genetics has not and will not revolutionize the way common diseases are identified or prevented. Some welcome genomics as ushering in a golden age of new and more effective treatments, better diagnostic interventions, and more powerful means of biological investigation through bioinformatics, genetic analysis, measurement of gene expression, and determination of gene function. Others caution against over-optimism, and point to the importance of culture, society and history to an understanding of the complexity of interaction between biology, genes, and environment. The lectures in this series explore some of these issues from historical and social science perspectives. Together they seek to stimulate discussion of the social, historical, and cultural meanings and uses of genomics; to help to put genomics in perspective.

Each event will feature

  • A lecture by a historian or social scientist
  • A response by a physician or scientist
  • A discussion period

Admission is free and all are welcome.

Program

Start time: All lectures will start at 4.00 pm. Location: Lister Hill auditorium, Building 38A, NIH Campus (directions below). Lecture: 45 minutes Response: 5-10 minutes Discussion: 30-45 minutes

dotMay 2, 2006: Genes, Railroads and Regulation: Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
  Lecture: Professor Daniel Kevles, Yale University.
  Response: Claire T. Driscoll, M.S., Director, Technology Transfer Office, National Human Genome Research Institute.
 
  Lecture: Professor Dorothy Porter, University of California, San Francisco.
  Response: Brian Kimes, Ph.D., former Director, Office of Centers, Training and Resources (OCTR), National Cancer Institute.
 
  Lecture: Professor Rayna Rapp, New York University
  Response: Sharon F. Terry, M.A., President and C.E.O., Genetic Alliance, 4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 404, Washington, D.C.
 
  Lecture: Professor Susan Lindee, University of Pennsylvania.
  Response: Alan E. Guttmacher, M.D., Deputy Director, National Human Genome Research Institute.
 
  Lecture: Professor Stephen Hilgartner, Cornell University.
  Response: Eric D. Green, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Human Genome Research Institute.
 
  Lecture: Professor Troy Duster, New York University.
  Response: Vivian Ota Wang, Ph.D., Program Director, Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Research Program, National Human Genome Research Institute, and Senior Advisor, Office of Behavioral & Social Sciences Research, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health.

The Lister Hill Center (Building 38A), part of the National Library of Medicine, is located near the intersection of Center and Medlars Drives on the campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Genomics in Perspective will take place in the Lister Hill Auditorium, on the first floor. The auditorium is also accessible via subway; Metro's "Medical Center" station, on the Red Line, is a short walk from the building's entrance. For directions, security information and other visitor information, please consult the Library's Web site at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/visitor.html

Click below for the full program, and abstracts. Program and abstracts (PDF)

The program is in PDF format. PDF documents require the use of the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader, which can be downloaded from Adobe's Web site at no charge.

For videos of the lectures click below: http://collab.nlm.nih.gov/webcastsandvideos/genomics/genomics.html

These videos are encoded for optimal viewing with dial up connections supporting at least 56 kbps or LAN connections supporting at least 150 kbps. Real Player is required to view the videos. You can download a free Real Player here.

Tom Shakespeare

I met Tom Shakespeare a week or so back in Newcastle. I have known of Tom's work for a number of years now and have cited a few things he has written. He does a great job of engaging people in ethical debate across sectors - arts, politics, philosophy, science - and he just told me about an event where he will speak next month. It is the Darwin Summer Symposium for 2006 entitled 'Unnatural Selection'. Other speakers include Lee Silver (Princeton), author of Remaking Eden...whom I also met this year at the Tomorrow's People conference in Oxford.

Genomics and Criminal Justice

Third edition of Genomics, Society and Policy! Nice one Mark!

SPECIAL ISSUE - GENOMICS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Vol.2, No.1

Download the complete issue at their website

Editorial Anthony Mark Cutter

Editorial Essay

To Clear or To Convict? The Role of Genomics in Criminal Justice Anthony Mark Cutter

Articles

Police collection and access to DNA samples Jane Kaye

First Impressions Count: Serious detections arising from Criminal Justice Samples Michael Townsley, Chloe Smith & Ken Pease

Bar-coded children: an exploration of issues around the inclusion of children on the England and Wales National DNA database Mairi Levitt & Floris Tomasini

Policy Implications of Defining Race and More by Genome Profiling Susanne B. Haga

Behavioural Genetics in Criminal Cases: Past, Present, and Future Nita Farahany & William Bernet

The true ramifications of genetic criminality research for free will in the criminal justice system Ozan Onay

Addiction in public health and criminal justice system governance: neuroscience, enhancement and happiness research Robin Mackenzie

Policing Procreation: Prisoners, Artificial Insemination and the Law Helen Codd

End of Life Decision-making, Policy and the Criminal Justice System: Untrained Carers Assuming Responsibility [UCARes] and Their Uncertain Legal Liabilities Hazel Biggs & Robin Mackenzie

Case Report

Forensic uses and misuses of DNA: a case report from Norway Bjørn Hofmann

Book Review

Review of Wrestling with Behavioral Genetics. Science Ethics and Public Conversation Mairi Levitt

Personalised Medicine: Cure or Quandry (9 May, 2006)

Personalised Medicine: Cure or Quandary?9 May 2006 19.00 - 20.30 The Dana Centre, 165 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5HE Nearest tubes: South Kensington or Gloucester Road

Imagine being prescribed ‘personalised’ medicines, specific to your genetic makeup.  Would this mean safer, more effective treatment, or could it result in a host of ethical problems when your DNA is scanned?

*********************************************************** Personalised medicines – or ‘pharmacogenetics’ involves looking at how a person’s genetic makeup affects their response to medicines. The idea is that a simple blood test could show if a particular person is suited to a particular drug. It should be possible to work out what time of day a drug should be taken for it to work most effectively. This would mean a whole new approach to treatment: the right medicine for the right person at the right dose. It sounds sensible, if futuristic, but personalised medicines are not without complications and may not be that far away.

The potential in this field is huge, but, as with any new technology, we must be aware of consequences. Large-scale genetic tests could offer us safer, better drugs, but who should have access to the information these tests provide? If a blood test reveals that a cancer sufferer will not respond to the best drug on the market, would their chances of survival be uncertain? Should their insurers know? Will drug companies develop medicines that may benefit only a few people?  Is the NHS ready for personalised medicines and can it afford them?

Join us to discuss the implications of personalised medicines. Will they usher in a new era of better healthcare, or simply bring higher costs and more ethical problems? Our speakers will help you decide.

Speakers Chairman - Clive Page, King’s College London

Jim Ritter, King’s College London Rob Kerwin, Institute of Psychiatry Katharina Wulff, Imperial College Nikolas Rose, London School of Economics   Event organised by The European Dana Alliance for the Brain and the British Pharmacological Society

Booking info This event is free but places must be booked by calling 020 7942 4040 or by e-mailing tickets@danacentre.org.uk.

Politics and Bioethics: The future of bioethics in a divided democracy (13-14 July, 2006)

CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT: POLITICS AND BIOETHICS http://politics.bioethics.net

REGISTRATION AND SUBMISSION OF PAPERS AND PANELS NOW OPEN: "Politics and Bioethics: The future of bioethics in a divided democracy" is the name of a very special, very important summer conference of the American Society for Bioethics and the Humanities, in Albany, New York on July 13th and 14th. Is bioethics being torn apart by political strife? Will it be split into "academics" and "lobbyists"? Will there be two fields of bioethics, each with its own journals, centers, even degree programs? This is the discipline's attempt to answer these and other questions, and you are invited - urged - to attend and add your voice. Leaders from the left and from the right will speak, led with a keynote by Edmund Pellegrino: Arthur Caplan, Nigel Cameron, Eric Cohen, Jeffrey Kahn, Glenn McGee, David Magnus, bestselling science writer Chris Mooney, Jonathan Moreno, John Robertson, Wesley Smith, Bonnie Steinbock, Paul Root Wolpe, Laurie Zoloth and others. On the banks of the Hudson, New York's capital city is easy to reach and beautiful in the summer, and the conference will allow participants to get home for the weekend or stay and enjoy the jazz festival, the mountains and Saratoga.

Politics and Bioethics is sponsored by Alden March Bioethics Institute, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Penn Center for Bioethics, University of Virginia Center for Bioethics, Albany Law School, Rockefeller Institute of Government, and The American Journal of Bioethics. Continuing education credits will be available from Albany Medical College.

Submit your registration and/or proposals to http://politics.bioethics.net

Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights (25-28 May, 2006)

In May this year, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies conference takes place at Stanford UniversityLaw School under the title indicated above. It is co-sponsored by the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences and Stanford Program in Ethics and Society. I will talk here about the 'criminalisation of enhancement' re-acting to recent moves within the US and elsewhere to frame enhancement as a social deviant practice that ought to involve criminal action. 

China bans transplant organ sales

Govt bans business of human organs BEIJING, March 28 -- China's Ministry of Health has issued a regulation on human organ transplanting, including the prohibiting of any organ business for commercial purposes.

    The regulation, which will take effect on July 1, rules out any interpersonal organ transplanting which violates related laws or is not in line with the spirit of medical ethnics.

    It also requires medical organizations which are qualified for transplanting organs to prove the legal origin of the organs and fully disclose surgical procedures prior to an operation.

    In addition, medical organizations must inform donors about the medical use of the organs and obtain their consent.

    The regulation also raises minute demands on personnel, equipment and techniques relevant to organ transplanting.

    China has achieved great progress in human organ transplanting and more than 90 thousand patients have undergone such operations over more than a decade.

    (Source: CRIENGLISH.com)

Edward Tenner

I first encountered Tenner's work 10 years ago, when I was studying for my undergraduate. In his book, 'Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences', he considers a number of cases related to sport and technology, which informed my own work. I have been reminded of his work again through the Hastings Center's Bioethics Forum, for which he writes. I will next visit the Hastings Center in May for a project meeting.

"Genetic Technologies Launches Sports Gene Test in Japan"

The launch of the SportsGeneTest in Japan was announced in the Washington Post in mid-September. Here is a quote from the press release: "GTG director, Professor Deon Venter, himself a former British Ironman Triathlon champion, attended the launch. Professor Venter commented, "Japan represents a significant market for the ACTN3 SportsGene Test(TM), with highly influential sporting and government bodies keen to explore the relationship between genetics and sporting performance. Japan is an extremely technologically-sophisticated country and is now taking a leadership position in the science of optimizing a person's sports potential according to their inherited genetic capabilities."

Posthumanism in Barcelona

Before this becomes incredibly out of date, I must mention the post-/trans- humanism session that took place at the conference on Ethics and Philosophy of Emerging Medical Technologies at Institut Borja de Bioetica, Universitat Ramon Llul, Barcelona, Spain in August 2005. The meeting was a joint annual meeting of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare and the European Association of Centres for Medical Ethics. I gave a paper on Posthuman Medicine and Imagined Ethics, which discussed a number of the futuristic scenarios posed by trans/post humanists, asking what legitmacy they have in critical, current debates on medicine and health care. It was particularly interesting to hear the term posthumanism in a number of papers, including Prof. Ruth Chadwick's keynote address on the definition and meaning of enhancement.

I do not think that posthumanism and transhumanism are informed by the same literature, nor are they speaking with the same intentions. I argued as much in my paper.

Other papers in my session, which itself was titled 'Transhumanism and Posthumanity" were:

F. torralba (Spain) What does posthumanity mean?

G. Weikert (Germany) Transhumanism - Hothouse of Mankind [this presenter did not attend]

We had a very engaging debate after the presentations, though I think there remains considerable skepticism for this proposed future, from within the medical community. Many doctors see the transformation of the human species within these terms, which is far from what they see as their role. This presents considerable challenges for advocates of technological enhancement; they have a considerable number of medical professionals to contend with.